The answer to that would probably have to do with the specifics of what it really means to own a piece of land.

Well unlike what the native Americans thought when the British discovered America, people can own land and will defend what they consider their property.
You can't just drop them off anywhere, because they can end up seriously disrupting the natural order or simply be unable to survive.
You can't expect their current owners to keep taking care of them if they can't profit for the expenses they have to put out to keep them.

I'm not a vegetarian but I think that if we could make (easily accessible) vegetarian cuisine that generally tasted better, I for one would be willing to "jump ship"

I'd consider it if it was easily accessible for the mere sake of eating healthier, but I still would not blame anyone who would still choose to continue eating meat. I don't feel there is anything morally wrong what so ever about eating meat, so I would let them eat what they want because that's their choice not mine.

Someone could have said that child labor was not a broken system and that the kids could work in a state of blissful ignorance that they were missing out on enjoying their childhood. "humane means of being put down" doesn't change the fact that putting them down is still an unproved act of violence against another living thing, and I don't see a way to justify that at all.

Humans will never be in the same state of blissful ignorance as animals, unless we manage to invent a system like the matrix. In which case I actually would not be morally against it, and as long as I myself was left as blissfully unaware of being inside it as everyone else I would not mind it.

The idea is that our general sense of what's ok and not ok change over time. It wasn't that long ago that we found it acceptable to have segregated schools and facilities for example.

The time for this has as of yet not come, and just because you think you're right does not mean you're right, just like how I think I'm right does not necessarily mean I'm right. So arguing that we should think what we do is wrong since the people in the future might think it's wrong, is just silly. Argue for what you believe in now, not what you think people will believe in the future. Because if you can't convince people now, why would they change in the future?

Currently it is uncommon to think of meat eating as morally wrong, since it's something we've been doing since the dawn of time, our bodies are adapted as herbivores, and we don't think it's morally wrong for other animals to kill other animals for food.

It's not just an opinion, that's why I said "unprovoked act of violence against another living thing". How are you able to justify an act of unprovoked violence just because of the reasoning of "our bodies are capable of digesting meat and it tastes good".

Well unlike what the native Americans thought when the British discovered America, people can own land and will defend what they consider their property.
You can't just drop them off anywhere, because they can end up seriously disrupting the natural order or simply be unable to survive.
You can't expect their current owners to keep taking care of them if they can't profit for the expenses they have to put out to keep them.

That was the Spanish, with Christopher Columbus, who came to other people's land (he didn't actually "discover" shit, this land was already inhabited), claimed it as their own, and then enslaved, tortured, and killed the natives. And that is simply according to government laws, I thought we were talking just in terms of morality here.

We're already disrupting the natural order in the first place with what we do to animals. I don't expect the current owners to keep taking care of them, I'm just arguing this from a moral point of view, about whether or not it's justified to eat meat.

It will negatively effect the people who make a living from it, it will negatively effect the people who will be forced to set them free on their land without profit, and should they receive compensation it will negatively effect tax-payers (whom many might still be against stopping the production of meat), and lastly it would of course negatively effect the people who simply enjoy meat as part of their love for good food.

I don't care whether somebody makes a living from it. Do i need to solicit animals to get the compensation i need for losing my job? Insignificant in comparison to what kind of endurance other living things had to give up for them. Metaphorically, i wouldn't allow a bank robber to continue his depravities because it will cause a negative effect on how he lives. It doesn't make sense giving mercy to welfares of a merciless system. We can argue to some degree of what will change but to really give the justification to continue being even more negative and contradicting is just something else. It's this proportional balance of negative causing positive dilemma, that you won't find a solution to both welfares so you just don't enter the arena in the first place.

Now given all these downsides to the stopped production of meat, as long as the animals are given humane treatment and humane means of being put down they will due to their difference in perceiving life, still live happy lives in a blissful state of animal-level ignorance. Why change something that isn't broken?

I could argue that it isn't humane to kill something that doesn't need to be killed. What are you going to do if they arn't humanely treated? I could also argue that i find it non humane to force life into this world under its volitile genuinity. Yeah to think that we all live in a blissful and happy state is a dangerous assumption to anyone.

It's not just an opinion, that's why I said "unprovoked act of violence against another living thing". How are you able to justify an act of unprovoked violence just because of the reasoning of "our bodies are capable of digesting meat and it tastes good".

Last time I checked Homo-Sapiens are Omnivores, and not herbivores. Herbivores are Rabbits, Deer, etc...

I actually think it is the opposite from healthy. All the Vegans and Vegetarians I know have Skin that is Pasty and does not look healthy. They also get sick more often and have more health problems.

I have no issue with that personally, it's their choice. But I still think it has more negative health effects then positive.

Last time I checked Homo-Sapiens are Omnivores, and not herbivores. Herbivores are Rabbits, Deer, etc...

There is enough evidence available to show that humans can live fine on a vegetarian or vegan diet.
As for the question whether we are omnivores or herbivores.. Who cares? The reality is we can live without meat, as so many others have done in the past.

I don't even understand his argument, because something1 can save something2 from the rare chance a flying object will hit it justifies everything something1 does to something2? wutt?

I'm not sure what PETA does but I do not claim other animals in the animal kingdom are exactly like homosapiens, our DNA is not equal to theirs, obviously. The argument is that there are some common traits among animals, sentience being one, or the capacity to feel(suffer) which are probably the same among both species, or if not the same, similar.

Let me ask you something Daemon, if you're so incredibly against humans abusing animals for their own gain - what is your opinion about the fact that (cruel) animal testing is being performed in the name of developing cures and medicine for both other animals and humans alike?

Or the fact that we literally milk snakes like cows to produce anti-venom? Thats cruel. We arent taking into account how the snake feels.

Because one system of cruelty exists where such and such happens, it is only right to accept many other systems based off animal cruelty? Because we milk snakes we should milk other species on the planet as you feel we are being slightly condescending? "It's ok to eat meat because theres already suffering in the world, we can create more suffering. We can pile up the suffering unlimited because you see, we've already reached the maxium required number of sufferers and so therefore it doesnt matter how much we pile on because we cant comprehend it anyway".

I mean, how can you cheapen the argument this way by saying that everything we do is killing animals at the same rate and at the same neglect and lack of consideration for suffering. So if we harm 1 animal, we can harm 7000 animals because somehow we're already harming one?

Its a different arguement this animal testing but if you want to know my opinion, drugs and medicine only do so much. They help pick up the pieces and they prolong life a little. but the most important aspect of it all is prevention. And in prevention, animals do not help us look at a human situation, diet and way of life. Things like improving water conditions, sourcing the causes - these are the real cures. Some experiments are questionable to the human situation, it's not in the name of developing cures as much as it's in the name of a multi billion dollar profiting campaign. I would like to go on but this isn't exactly the thread but i would discuss it if you wish.

I'm a vegetarian, I don't tell anyone else what to eat. They can eat whatever the fuck they want.
I eat what I want and they eat what they want. Anyone who makes fun of someone for what they eat is very stupid.
Want to kill animals for a tasty meal? I don't give a fuck. Just don't force it on others.
Don't see why there should be a mass debate thread about this.

Yeah right so it's a personal choice not based on philosophy? It's a personal choice based on desire? So there's people born with a desire not to eat meat or some personal gain not to eat meat? No, people don't eat meat (most of them), because it makes logical sense for some reason either because they understand that meat is inefficient, inhumane and a waste and an abomination and something if they can avoid doing it, it's worth not doing.

This isn't how you debate, you know that right? Attacking people on both sides just means you're fucking with us by this point. People can choose to not eat meat without giving a single shit about how "unethical" and "inhumane" the process to get the meat is. They might not like the taste, texture and such of meat. It's a personal choice, no philosophy, no desire. Just someone who decides "hey, I don't want to eat meat any more, I don't actually enjoy it!".

Why the hell are you still arguing here anyway? Your points are asinine attacks on the opposition for being immoral assholes most times.

This isn't how you debate, you know that right? Attacking people on both sides just means you're fucking with us by this point. People can choose to not eat meat without giving a single shit about how "unethical" and "inhumane" the process to get the meat is. They might not like the taste, texture and such of meat. It's a personal choice, no philosophy, no desire. Just someone who decides "hey, I don't want to eat meat any more, I don't actually enjoy it!".

Why the hell are you still arguing here anyway? Your points are asinine attacks on the opposition for being immoral assholes most times.

Jesus, you really think confronting someones post is a sign of attacking them...
Yeah, you don't have to be a fluffy moralist to not eat meat like i said some of them don't. But no, most people do turn vegetarian because of a logical understanding, a witness of what kind of ethics are involved in meat production (that is a philosophical ground ok?). I mean really did you have to call me out on what action a person takes when they need to make a decision on something? yeah, i am quite positive they make a 'choice'. These people who don't believe in eating meat because they just don't want to aren't doing it on an philosophical view point other than their simplistic desire. It isn't their desire to eat meat so they made the desirable choice not to on another basis. They condone it, it isn't their interest to hault it, they couldn't care whether for it to continue being practiced and thats what the whole fucking argument is about. We aren't arguing about why vegetarians think meat tastes bad.

Why the hell are you still arguing here anyway? Your points are asinine attacks on the opposition for being immoral assholes most times.

It isn't that hard hexpunk. Provide me with something to argue against that, stop turtle necking my posts claiming they are asinine like i haven't shortenend my arguments this page for the augmented to understand. We are all cockroaches right? So why is it necessary to be an even bigger cockroach? You know... you have your CO2 footprint, lower your suffering footprint i guess?